Young lawyers have been yelled at by judges, threatened with contempt and their cases adjourned for attending virtual hearings while sitting in the car, not combing their hair, having their dog in the room etc. Why does AMS get off lightly? India Today didn't even have the guts to name him! Only RW website like OpIndia and PGurus have named him and if this goes viral it will be because of them (plus perhaps this thread on LI). Even earlier Rajeev Dhawan was caught smoking a hookah but got away as he said he is unfamiliar with technology and the judges accepted that excuse. WTF is that?

Even more shockingly, someone from AMS's office has shared a photo of him appearing in shorts and smiling. The photo was taken with his consent it seems. Can you imagine what would happen if a young lawyer posed like that? The judges would give him hell and debar him!! Shameful double standards of the judiciary and the legal system as a whole 😡😡😡😡😡 All we are seeking is parity between juniors and seniors. Stop this caste system!!!



https://www.opindia.com/2021/06/abhishek-manu-singhvi-virtual-hearing-pants-down/

https://www.pgurus.com/lawyer-abhishek-singhvi-caught-with-his-pants-down-again/

https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/virtual-hearing-gaffe-lawyer-caught-attending-court-proceedings-in-shorts-as-tablet-falls-1815267-2021-06-15

If this photo was leaked from a Junior Lawyer- with no law family/Political background/ Lower Judiciary Judge the story would be different--- he would be issued a contempt notice/fired by the Culcutta HC. Indian Courts have double standards. Everyone knows that Judge's stoop down to Senior Counsels.

Even if a lower Judiciary judge did this he will be automatically dismissed/punished. What you are telling is true.This caste system where judges suck up to Senior Counsels must end.

Just imagine? If LI discussions were not anonymous would you as a practicing lawyer dare to post anything like this? The answer is no for obvious reasons.

3 years ago, a few judges from Bihar (Lower Judiciary) were dismissed for having consensual sexual Intercourse with a prostitute in Nepal. Even without a single sexual assault allegation, all there was an allegation that they paid and had sex with a prostitute in Nepal.

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/east-and-northeast/three-bihar-judges-dismissed-for-immoral-act-930341.html

Former Chief Justice of India Gogoi sexually assaulted (allegedly) a junior staffer. Even after the sexual assault, shamefully fellow judges including 1 woman Supreme Court Judge and Senior Counsel-rushed in to protect him- Indu Malhotra & Indira Banerjee) These two woman even conducted a sham inquiry to show that former CJI is innocent.

Even for having consensual sex. Lower Judiciary Officers were fired; despite less grounds to do the same. Not defending for reinstating Bihar Judge's actions; This is just to point out the lack of accountability and extreme cronyism of the Higher Judiciary

But there are still many sex offenders (yes) - who takes bribes (open secret) sitting in High Courts and Supreme Court and deciding Constitutional matters; even till this date.

Indias Higher Judiciary (HC & SC) are extremely powerful where they crush any dissenting Lower Judiciary Judge's and Non-Family/Politically Connected- junior lawyers voice.

The system is rigged. Everything from BCI to Supreme Court.

Yes. There are HC Judge's who regularly take bribes/get & do favours and go scott free. But question them and your practice would be instantaneously be destroyed.

You should not be surprised even when Supreme Court Judge's Suck up to politically connected Senior Counsels.

There is a reason why they do it - Continuation of the Judicial Dynasty and ensure that no bar exists - (even the smallest) to prevent thier offsprings when they are called for Judgeships.

There are members of judicial and political dynasty on court and they don't want to piss off a Congress/BJP Senior Counsel and reduce thier children's chances of ascending to Judgeship. There are hundreds of Judge's who's children are into Litigation and would like to get a Judgeship in the future.

For example, many Supreme Court Judge's children are aspiring Judge's (High Court & Supreme Court) Some of them returned from big firms in USA, UK & India to litigate in Indian Courts before getting almost assured Judgeships.

Thier fathers (sitting HC & Supreme Court Judge's) won't piss off a Senior Counsel, especially a politically connected one as far as possible - to avoid small roadblocks to thier kids paved road to Judgeship.

This rant is not an exaggeration my friend. If you are in the practice for atleast a decade you will agree on this.

Why trollish Kian? If you can name even one MSM outlet that has given his name then you can mark it that way. In fact, apart from India Today no one even reported it!!! Not even Bar & Bench. Why is Bar & Bench afraid? Don't tell me it's not because he is a Congress MP with huge political influence and who MSM/B&B will need to cover future stories. A FACT cannot be trollish.

Would agree that bhakt is sometimes a tough one to moderate: at which point is it merely descriptive and at which does it become derogatory? I.e., is calling someone a bhakt fundamentally describing their relationship and belief in a short-hand, like calling someone a RaGa fanboy or Congress worshipper? Or is being called a bhakt of Modi functionally the same as a troll calling people left of centre they agree with "sickular", "libtards" or the other similarly 'creative' terms that have been moderated on this forum?

In moderation, we tend to currently allow use of 'bhakt' if used in a descriptive sense, but if it's accompanied by clear intent to abuse or troll or incite a flamewar, then it would tend to fall into the trollish camp. Likewise, RaGa fanboy or Congress worshipper would probably be fine in isolation but if it becomes ad hominem in intent, it would be trollish.

Happy to take some feedback on this.

When it comes to pandemic etiquette the golden rule to follow is: "It's what appears that matters". There may be many lawyers you used to meet on an everyday basis earlier who never wore underwears beneath their gown and shirt. Did it matter? No. In fact, I remember when I was interning in Delhi High Court, I had seen once seen this really attractive woman come out of a Jaguar wearing shorts and a white top. I didn't think she was a lawyer. But then she wrapped herself in a black gown so well that it covered her from head to toe and then proceeded to court.

Similarly, it is problematic only if you appear doing something unprofessional "on-screen". Beneath that, how does it matter? For all you know the judges might be sitting with their pants down (Pro-tip: If you are afraid of arguing before anyone, imagine them with their pants down anyway.)

True. How does it matter what's happening outside the camera frame when people are working from hom, as long as it doesn't disrupt the hearing. Next you know, OP will want Singhvi's family members and staff in the house, all to be dressed in formals at all times when Singhvi is appearing before a court through VC. Because by OP's logic, even things which may not be visible or may not disrupt the hearing, are supposed to be presentable for the court.